If the Rams trade up, it should be to get...

[AvengerRam]

... who would be the top target?

[ramstiles]

I voted hawk but I don't think it would cost as much to trade up for huff and I wouldn't mind that either

[Nick]

Mario won't make it out of the top four, IMO. I voted for Hawk, but it would likely cost too much to move into the top five where I think he could go. If Hawk or Huff are available at eight, I think it's worth trading up at that point.

[tomahawk247]

I went for Hawk, although i doubt it will happen

[majorram]

Hawk all the way but like has been said it will perhaps cost too much!!

steve

[txramsfan]

If we're going to trade up, don't mess around. Snag New Orleans second pick, make Super Mario a Ram, and excuse the war room for the rest of the day.

[CanadianRam!]

Hawk will be likely take to much for us as he is likely be taken 5 or 6.. Huff is much more realistic at around 8 or 9...so we should try to push for Huff since he will cost us much less.

[txramsfan]

Ok, question: How do we know it would cost too much to get a player? I mean, I would probably have let someone take Pickett, DLew and Arch for Super Mario. We had 3 number ones recently, 3, and really none of them panned out. So how does one really know for sure it would cost too much?

[Nick]

Well, Green Bay declined two first round picks to move down from fifth overall. I think that gives us a pretty decent idea of what it might cost to get into the top five.

[txramsfan]

I understand that Nick, I do....however, to me costs is irrelevant. Why? We drafted 3 in the first round recently and that REALLY has cost us. Screw it, if you are going to trade up....really trade up and get a blue chipper. Not another DLew, Arch, Pickett scenario.

[Nick]

Well, for one we don't have three first round picks like we did then. We only have one. So do you trade next year's pick because we had a bad first round in 2001? Do we trade our second and third, even though in 2003 we got Pisa and Kevin Curtis in those rounds?

Keep in mind Mike Ditka and the New Orleans Saints thought they were getting a great blue chipper in Ricky Williams when they traded away six 1999 draft picks (a first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh) as well as a first and third the following year.

Trading up to grab one of the top prospects isn't a guaranteed success.

[txramsfan]

So you've finally came over to the dark side then Nick and admitted that the draft is as close to russian roulette as the NFL can get.

[RealRam]

Keep in mind Mike Ditka and the New Orleans Saints thought they were getting a great blue chipper in Ricky Williams when they traded away six 1999 draft picks (a first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh) as well as a first and third the following year. --Nick

All that for Ricky "Weed" Williams! Goodness gracious. :tut

[AvengerRam]

So you've finally came over to the dark side then Nick and admitted that the draft is as close to russian roulette as the NFL can get.

No, not Russian Roulette... that would suggest a purely random outcome, which it isn't.

Its more like poker. One can enhance the probability of success with strategy and gamesmanship but you can't fully eliminate the "luck of the draw" factor.

[Chiledog]

Why isn't Bush on your list?